Bounty hunter faces Mexican prison term

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-07-07 05:35pm

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/2 ... -5439r.htm

PUERTO VALLARTA, Mexico, June 26 (UPI) -- The bounty hunter who beat the FBI to fugitive rapist Andrew Luster in Puerto Vallarta last week faces a prison sentence for violating Mexican laws.

Duane Lee "Dog" Chapman and his four associates are seen in Mexico as violating that nation's sovereignty. The Los Angeles Times says Mexican authorities argue the only way to keep order is to send a strong signal of the repercussions to anyone thinking of trying the same thing.

Puerto Vallarta District Attorney Marco Roberto Juarez told the Times he understands the sympathy for Chapman felt among some people in the United States. But, Juarez added: "The problem is that what they did is not legal here."

Chester and the other men involved in Luster's capture are charged with criminal association and illegal deprivation of liberty. Under Mexican law, prison sentences range from one to four years for criminal association and one month to four years for depriving Luster of his liberty.

**********

Wow, what a fucking gyp. Lets shoot every fucking mexican that sets foot
on the border until this guy is released...

TheFeniX · Post by **TheFeniX** » 2003-07-07 05:43pm

Looks like he didn't think to bribe the right "federale."

It's instances like these that keep me from ever wanting to leave the US on vacation.

Jadeite · Post by **Jadeite** » 2003-07-07 05:56pm

Shitheads. Stupid Mexican government needs to be put in its place.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-07-07 05:57pm

Jadeite wrote:Shitheads. Stupid Mexican government needs to be put in its place.

The Mexican army routinely violates american sovereignity, and lets not get on the
fact that millions of their citizens violate our sovereignity.

I say we set up a massive 30 mile belt of landmines on the border

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-07-07 05:59pm

They broke the laws of Mexico, and now they are going to be punished. I don't see a problem here.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-07-07 06:11pm

Howedar wrote:They broke the laws of Mexico, and now they are going to be punished. I don't see a problem here.

I see a problem when a lone american citizen is punished for breaking mexico's laws, while the MEXICAN government aggressively seeks to
facilitate the breaking of american laws by millions of it's own citizens
by setting up water points in the desert for the illegals to get water
on their journey to illegally cross the border

Dark Hellion · Post by **Dark Hellion** » 2003-07-07 06:13pm

The problem, howedar, is that the mexican break U.S. Law and U.S. Sovereignty everyday and the mexican government does nothing about it. This is just the Mexican Gov. trying to show off that they have some semblence of a border that is watched and some sort of national sovereignty, when in reality no one wants to go to mexico except for a few resort locations that are just extensions of America anyways.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-07-07 06:15pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Howedar wrote:They broke the laws of Mexico, and now they are going to be punished. I don't see a problem here.
I see a problem when a lone american citizen is punished for breaking mexico's laws, while the MEXICAN government aggressively seeks to
facilitate the breaking of american laws by millions of it's own citizens
by setting up water points in the desert for the illegals to get water
on their journey to illegally cross the border

And we should arrest them and send them back for breaking our laws. Having this bounty hunter arrested is in and of itself not an issue to me. The issue is the hypocracy, which has nothing to do with this particular case.

TheFeniX · Post by **TheFeniX** » 2003-07-07 09:12pm

He should have bribed the right official.

Solution: Don't go to Mexico.

I had plans this summer to take a trip out of the country. After doing some research online about world views on Americans (especially us "violent hick Texans") those plans went right out the window.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-07-07 09:20pm

TheFeniX wrote:He should have bribed the right official.

Solution: Don't go to Mexico.

I had plans this summer to take a trip out of the country. After doing some research online about world views on Americans (especially us "violent hick Texans") those plans went right out the window.

For your vacation come to Quebec we`re nice and our water don`t make you sick.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2003-07-07 10:30pm

TheFeniX wrote:He should have bribed the right official.

Solution: Don't go to Mexico.

I had plans this summer to take a trip out of the country. After doing some research online about world views on Americans (especially us "violent hick Texans") those plans went right out the window.

They like Americans in Mexico, because they have MONEY. Tourism is a big part of the economy in certain parts of Mexico, and you'll be treated well by most people if you throw a little money around--the same is true for every place on Earth. You just have to watch out for the classic problems of going to a third world country, particularly if you don't speak the language.

On the topic:

Jadeite wrote:Shitheads. Stupid Mexican government needs to be put in its place.

Fuck you. It's a sovereign country, and if you go down there and violate its laws you're going to get burned. These guys should have planned their job better--a little knowledge of the law goes a long way.

MKSheppard wrote:The Mexican army routinely violates american sovereignity, and lets not get on the fact that millions of their citizens violate our sovereignity.

Your argument would carry more weight if the Mexicans were entering territory that wasn't siezed at the point of a sword. The water points are there to keep people alive, because unlike you, some people believe that human life has value. When people whine about it, I ask them "Would you rather that these impoverished and disenfranchised men, women, and children would die on America's doorstep?"

And if you answer 'yes,' well, fuck you.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-07-07 11:49pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote:When people whine about it, I ask them "Would you rather that these impoverished and disenfranchised men, women, and children would die on America's doorstep?"

And if you answer 'yes,' well, fuck you.

Disenfranchised? Why is it any of America's fault that they are impoverished or in ruin? It isn't our job to fix that shit hole.

Furthermore, we've tolerated Mexican troops firing on Border Patrol agents to facilitate the smuggling of meth and other shit into this country.

I am half-Mexican, and my grandparents came her legally, and didn't contribute to a massive social and economic degredation of the Southwestern U.S.

If they break the laws, and smuggle drugs, then they pay the price.

So indeed, fuck you.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-07-08 12:33am

Instead of moaning about the Mexicans daring to enforce their laws on US citizens with Mexico perhaps you should place the blame for the Mexican immigration problem where it belongs, your own government ignoring the will of its people because they have their own interests at heart.

Anyway not to worry the immigration problem should be solved in 50 years or so when Latinos become the largest segment of the population in the US and you fall under the banner of the United Mexican States

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-08 01:51am

Pablo Sanchez wrote:
Your argument would carry more weight if the Mexicans were entering territory that wasn't siezed at the point of a sword.

If you had left out this sentence, I could applaud most of your argument, but seriously, Pablo--get off of it. Mexico and the USA fought a war over the American annexation of Texas, the USA won big, we occupied Mexico, and we decided to keep part of your northern territories that happened to have a lot of Americans in them, some Indians, and not all that many Mexicans, while leaving the rest of the country independent and sovereign. That's a hell of a lot better than annexing the whole country, which was fully within our power to do, and Mexico agreed to the terms of the territorial arrangements which settled the war, so there's absolutely nothing to complain about. The people who want the annexations back are a bunch of neo-fascist racists who's only interest in life is hating white people, and, oh, trying to turn a civilization (the Aztecs) who practiced human sacrifice into something glorious.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-07-08 01:57am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
If you had left out this sentence, I could applaud most of your argument, but seriously, Pablo--get off of it. Mexico and the USA fought a war over the American annexation of Texas, the USA won big, we occupied Mexico, and we decided to keep part of your northern territories that happened to have a lot of Americans in them, some Indians, and not all that many Mexicans, while leaving the rest of the country independent and sovereign. That's a hell of a lot better than annexing the whole country, which was fully within our power to do, and Mexico agreed to the terms of the territorial arrangements which settled the war, so there's absolutely nothing to complain about.

Not to mention the US paid Mexico 15 million for it all. Not very much, but considering it was almost totally undeveloped, mostly empty desert then and now and that the US could have taken the whole thing and forced Mexico to pay to US its pretty damn good.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-07-08 02:17am

Your argument would carry more weight if the Mexicans were entering territory that wasn't siezed at the point of a sword. The water points are there to keep people alive, because unlike you, some people believe that human life has value. When people whine about it, I ask them "Would you rather that these impoverished and disenfranchised men, women, and children would die on America's doorstep?"

Name a country that did not aquire its land by sword/gun point. Nobody is innocent of taking land. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Mexicans take that land from the Spanish? And didn't the Spanish take that land from the Indians?

Human life is immportant too, but wouldn't it be more appropraite if MEXICO tried to keep them out of the burning desert and tried to keep the smugglers from dealing in human life.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-07-08 03:02am

Thats funny, I thought the Mexicans tried to sieze Texas at the point of a sword some years prior?

Typhonis 1 · Post by **Typhonis 1** » 2003-07-08 11:48am

I think the deal was from WW1 Germany would give Mexico all the lands the US took from it if it attacked the US.

This backfired.Said message was intercepted and decoded and England handed it over to us...shortly thereafter the US entered WW1

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-07-08 12:23pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote:
TheFeniX wrote:He should have bribed the right official.

Solution: Don't go to Mexico.

I had plans this summer to take a trip out of the country. After doing some research online about world views on Americans (especially us "violent hick Texans") those plans went right out the window.
They like Americans in Mexico, because they have MONEY. Tourism is a big part of the economy in certain parts of Mexico, and you'll be treated well by most people if you throw a little money around--the same is true for every place on Earth. You just have to watch out for the classic problems of going to a third world country, particularly if you don't speak the language.

On the topic:
Jadeite wrote:Shitheads. Stupid Mexican government needs to be put in its place.
Fuck you. It's a sovereign country, and if you go down there and violate its laws you're going to get burned. These guys should have planned their job better--a little knowledge of the law goes a long way.

Pablo wrote: The water points are there to keep people alive, because unlike you, some people believe that human life has value.
Do some research, Pablo. Those water points were added
because of beefed up border security on the US side shut down
the easy points of entry, forcing the illegals to walk through
deserts to illegally enter the US.

The mexican government continues to aid and abet it's
citizens' lawbreaking of american laws, while they come down
like the proverbial ton of bricks on yanquis who break mexican
laws...let's not even get into the part about American retirees
in mexico being fucked out of their land because according
to mexican law, no non-mexican may own land in mexico

When people whine about it, I ask them "Would you rather that these impoverished and disenfranchised men, women, and children would die on America's doorstep?"

Yes. My grandparents had to wait YEARS before they could immigrate
from Canada, while these beaners are just walking across, violating
every single shred of american immigration laws.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-07-08 12:24pm

Goddamn Fucked up quotes....someone fix that will ya

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-07-08 12:35pm

Howedar wrote:Thats funny, I thought the Mexicans tried to sieze Texas at the point of a sword some years prior?

Texas was originally a province of Mexico that became largely settled by American whites. The settlers demanded and recieved a great deal of autonomy from Mexico City, to the point that when slavery was abolished in the rest of the country, it remained legal in Texas. When Santa Ana became dictator, he tried to crack down on the Texans and closed the province to any new American settlement, and the Texans responded by declaring independence. Santa Ana was such an incompetent buffoon that he managed to lose the war with better odds than the British had had during the American Revolution, and he managed to get himself captured and forced to sign a treaty recognizing Texas's independence at bayonet point. Once he got back to Mexico City, he promptly announced the treaty was invalid because it was signed under duress (not an entirely irrevelant point, actually), but Mexico made no attempt to bring the "Republic of Texas" back into the fold. The Texans immediately asked for the U.S. to annex them, but northerners blocked all attempts to do so because adding another slave state would have given the South the majority in the Senate. Polk was finally able to ram a treaty of annexation through, partly by promising to force the British out of the Oregon Country entirely (which would have made modern-day British Columbia American and made Canada a one-ocean nation). Polk annexed Texas and claimed the U.S. boundary with Mexico was now the Rio Grande. The Mexicans claimed it was the Nueces, several hundred miles north. Polk sent troops into the disputed area, and when they were fired upon, he claimed it was an act of war and Congress declared war on Mexico. We ended up annexing the entire Southwest, which infuriated Northerners who were convinced they were going to try to extend slavery all the way to the Pacific coast, and to add insult to injury, Polk settled the Oregon dispute by giving up the northern half to the British.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2003-07-08 01:51pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: If you had left out this sentence, I could applaud most of your argument, but seriously, Pablo--get off of it. Mexico and the USA fought a war over the American annexation of Texas, the USA won big, we occupied Mexico, and we decided to keep part of your northern territories that happened to have a lot of Americans in them, some Indians, and not all that many Mexicans, while leaving the rest of the country independent and sovereign.

Part of my northern territories? I'm an American.

And see RedImperator's post. I started to type it out myself, but them I noticed that he explained it better than I ever could

That's a hell of a lot better than annexing the whole country, which was fully within our power to do, and Mexico agreed to the terms of the territorial arrangements which settled the war, so there's absolutely nothing to complain about.

An unjust, manufactured war by a powerful country to sieze the territory of its weaker neighbor, purely in the interests of a political theory? I think that's something to complain about.

The people who want the annexations back are a bunch of neo-fascist racists who's only interest in life is hating white people, and, oh, trying to turn a civilization (the Aztecs) who practiced human sacrifice into something glorious.

I don't agree with those people, but I still think it bears pointing out.

knife wrote:Name a country that did not aquire its land by sword/gun point. Nobody is innocent of taking land. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Mexicans take that land from the Spanish? And didn't the Spanish take that land from the Indians?

The Aztecs deserved to have their land taken away, because they were human-sacrificing militarist bastards. The Spanish deserved to have their land taken away, because they were incompetent colonial managers.

Howedar wrote:Thats funny, I thought the Mexicans tried to sieze Texas at the point of a sword some years prior?

That's what a lot of Americans think. But the real story is that the Americans which the Mexican government invited to settle the sparsely populated Texas territory, in exchange for their agreement to convert to Roman Catholicism and free their slaves. They agreed and moved in, then totally failed to follow through. The Mexicans then decided it wasn't worth the trouble to force it on them, but after the Texans got increasingly populous and important, Santa Anna tried it... and we all know how that went.

MKSheppard wrote:Yes. My grandparents had to wait YEARS before they could immigrate from Canada, while these beaners are just walking across, violating every single shred of american immigration laws.

When you use racial slurs in your response it sends it straight into the shitter. I feel so sorry for your poor Canadian grandparents, and for my ancestors as well (who became Americans in much the same way). Sitting for years, working at comparatively high income jobs, living in comfort. How dare those goddam peasants cross the border illegally.

Sheppard, if you could increase your standard of living by 4-5 times and still have enough money left to send home to give some support your extended family, just by walking a few miles through the desert and violating the laws of a country which fucked yours over in the first place--would you do it? Let's add another permutation; if you stay where you are, you usually won't have enough to eat, you don't have a job, you're a net drain on your family, and there isn't shit you can do about if you stay in Mexico. What would you do?

MKSheppard wrote:Do some research, Pablo. Those water points were added because of beefed up border security on the US side shut down
the easy points of entry, forcing the illegals to walk through deserts to illegally enter the US.

I was perfectly aware of that. But do you understand, Sheppard, that these people don't have anything in Mexico? No jobs, no money, no hope? They would try to cross the border even if it meant dying, because most don't have anything to live for south of the border anyway.

MKSheppard wrote:The mexican government continues to aid and abet it's citizens' lawbreaking of american laws,

The responsibility of a government is to the safety of its citizens.

MKSheppard wrote:while they come down like the proverbial ton of bricks on yanquis who break mexican laws...let's not even get into the part about American retirees in mexico being fucked out of their land because according to mexican law, no non-mexican may own land in mexico

Shit... it's their law. It may not be just, but there are laws in America that serve similar purposes (most states have laws preventing out-of-country owners from accumulating too much land, because IIRC in the 70s-80s Saudis began to buy up a lot of farmland and act as absentee landlords). I would also ask how they're being fucked out of their land, if they never legally purchased it in the first place. I'd need to know more about this before I made a judgement.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:I am half-Mexican, and my grandparents came her legally, and didn't contribute to a massive social and economic degredation of the Southwestern U.S.

You know what's funny? I haven't noticed any such thing occurring, and neither has any of the people I know that live in that area. The average illegal immigrant comes across, fills a minimum wage job, and then lives quietly and probably sends a large proportion of his paycheck back home. The exceptions get the publicity.

If they break the laws, and smuggle drugs, then they pay the price.

Because ALL illegal immigrants are mules.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-07-08 04:51pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote: The Aztecs deserved to have their land taken away, because they were human-sacrificing militarist bastards. The Spanish deserved to have their land taken away, because they were incompetent colonial managers.

The Mexicans deserved to have their land taken away because they're
incompetent corrupt turd world assholes who nationalized American oil
companies in the 1940s...Gee, fat lot of help that oil wealth did in helping
the country move ahead

Pablo Sanchez wrote: When you use racial slurs in your response it sends it straight into the shitter.

Blow me. I don't like Mexicans. I could have used stronger insults,
but I didn't.

Sitting for years, working at comparatively high income jobs, living in comfort.

Ha, try explaining that to my Grandmother - her husband had to
work nearly continously at a shitty gas station job during that time.

The responsibility of a government is to the safety of its citizens.

Ok then, you support the Italian stance:

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,3 ... 60,00.html

Italian Navy dinghy on patrol

ITALY SHOOT-TO-KILL ORDER

Italian navy and coastguard vessels are to be ordered to open fire with live rounds on boats carrying illegal immigrants.

The radical approach to Italy's asylum problem was outlined by a senior minister in Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's coalition government.

Reforms Minister Umberto Bossi said he was sick of illegal immigrants and wanted to hear "the blast of cannons".

"After the second or third warning, bang... we fire the cannon," Mr Bossi told Corriere della Sera newspaper.

"Without too much talking. A cannon to knock out whoever may be there.

"Otherwise, we're never going to put an end to this problem."

Asked whether it would be right to fire on immigrants who are generally unarmed women and children, Mr Bossi was firm.

"Whether they're good or bad, one way or the other illegal immigrants have got to be chased away," he said.

"The navy and coastguard should defend our shores and use their cannons to do it.

"That's the best way to enforce the law. No deferring or turning back."

Until now, the Italian navy has only been permitted to board boats at sea and escort them back to port, in line with international practice.

Mr Bossi's comments come in the wake of a recent surge in illegal immigration from north and central Africa.

More than 1,000 people have landed in southern Italy in the last three days and nearly 3,000 so far in June.

Mr Bossi, who heads the right-wing Northern League party, threatened that if the government didn't start taking a harder line, he would pull his support for the coalition.

"Whether the government's allies agree or not, I want to hear the sound of the cannons by the end of the week or I'm off," he said.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-07-08 04:59pm

You know, Shep, a racist fucker like Umberto Bossi, who wanks to pics of Mussolini, is not a good example of proper and humane behaviour. Italy and its government are going down hard if an inccident like shooting emmigrants ever happens. I don't expect that law to pass or to be effectively implemented.

Whether the government's allies agree or not, I want to hear the sound of the cannons by the end of the week or I'm off," he said.

I hope you rot in hell, bitch.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-07-08 05:06pm

Colonel Olrik wrote:You know, Shep, a racist fucker like Umberto Bossi, who wanks to pics of Mussolini, is not a good example of proper and humane behaviour. Italy and its government are going down hard if an inccident like shooting emmigrants ever happens. I don't expect that law to pass or to be effectively implemented.

Whatever. Rampant, unchecked immigration is the surest way to destroy
a country? Why do you think the nations of Europe are slowly coming
around to harder lines?